As an aside, today's award for MSM anti-life bias goes to the Associated Press, which by word two (!) of a Feb. 8 article showed malice toward the pro-life position:
A disturbing number of U.S. doctors do not feel obligated to tell patients about medical options they oppose morally, such as abortion and teen birth control, and believe they have no duty to refer people elsewhere for such treatments, researchers say.
Congratulations, AP!
The piece was on a study conducted by University of Chicago researchers published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which found "52% of the physicians... reported objections to abortion for failed contraception, and 42% reported objections to contraception for adolescents without parental consent."
Asked NEJM, "Should physicians have the right to refuse to discuss, provide, or refer patients for medical interventions to which they have moral objections? The medical profession appears to be divided on this issue."
Not really. It is only anti-lifers who appear to oppose a physicians' right to choose.
Both ethicists quoted in the NEJM study protesting a doctor's right not to participate in the Culture of Death were themselves members of that culture.
For instance, Dr. R. Alta Charo, Professor of Law and Bioethics at the infamously liberal University of Wisconsin at Madison, "criticize[d] those medical professionals who would claim 'an unfettered right to personal autonomy while holding monopolistic control over a public good,'" stated the study.
Charo, who herself claims an unfettered right to personal autonomy - but only when it comes to abortion, previously served as a Clinton appointee to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. After that commission expired and Bush appointed pro-life Dr. Leon Kass as chair of his newly created Council on Bioethics, Charo complained Kass was "unhappy with the enhanced degrees of personal freedom that things like the feminist movement and the reconfiguration of human families have brought to us."
Then there is Professor Julian Savulescu, Chair in Practical Ethics of the University of Oxford, who argued, according to the NEJM study, "a doctor's conscience has little place in the delivery of modern medical care."
Savulescu, who doesn't own one, has previously argued that "abortion and embryo destruction prevent a future of value, but that does not make them wrong," and "killing a fetus is like failing to conceive a baby."
Well, only if you think what is never was, or perhaps what your definition of "is" is. But I digress.
Once again we see the other side showing it is only pro-"choice" if death is chosen.
